Quality of the movies (now and then)

[Mike Newell]

Words of Bob Iger Disney CEO

Iger said Disney was focused so much on profit that it undermined the brand that had won so many devoted fans.

Marvel has 7,000 characters, so there are a lot more stories to tell,' he said. 'What we have to look at at Marvel is not necessarily the volume of Marvel storytelling but how many times do we go back to the well on certain characters? Sequels typically work well for us, but do you need a third and a fourth [installment] for instance? Or is it time to turn to other characters?'

Like loving pizza and being force fed it four times a day forever.

There have always been cinematic trends

Universal Monsters 1920s until late 1930s until censorship killed them.

Hammer Horrors 1950s made so much money they save Universal from bankruptcy yet Hammer was bankrupt by early 1970s.

Westerns 1930s to 1960s literally churned out on both cinema and television until public tired of them.

Musicals 1930s until 1960s until public tired of them . Now a rare commodity.

Detectives 1960s to 1980s big screen and television until they burnt out.

Science Fiction rose again on box office of Star Wars late 1970s to 2000s. Prior to Star Wars science fiction was virtually dead.

Marvel Super Heroes 2000 onwards based on CGI and universal appeal based on little language.

[Mike Newell]

In the UK many years back we used to have a weekly film review program with a very droll presenter called Barry Norman.

I used to watch it avidly every week as a teenager.

I always remember a comment from Mr. Norman when reviewing a re-release of The Wizard of Oz (this would be the late 1980's).

"Well, they don't make 'em like that anymore. Although, come to think of it, they didn't make many like that even then..."

Barry Norman was like marmite. At times he was brill but he had his favourites and unfavourites. Apparently the film companies hated him as they thought he could kill the box office of a movie by slating or giving a bad review to a movie.

His replacement Jonathan Ross like movies but was too nice.

After that it was all downhill until the film review programme was killed off.

[Brian Fretwell]

Also the Barry Norman series included a visit to a Derann Open Day.

[Rob Young]

Barry Norman used to make me laugh; he really didn't seem to like anything!! In my teens I would go the cinema twice a week and see everything. A lot of the movies he hated, I loved, so "in the eye of the beholder" I guess! Or just an age difference thing. Which brings me back to the thread; I wonder if a lot of the movies I still love because I saw them as a kid I would feel the same about if I saw them at my age now...especially the more violent ones...

Yes Brian, it was Film 86 with Derann, although Michael Parkinson had taken the chair by that point. For our oversees colleagues, Michael Parkinson was well known in the UK as a mild mannered Saturday night chat show host.

As I recall, he like even less than Barry Norman!!

[Ken Finch]

It seems to me that many of the responses to this thread have gone a bit off topic i.e. quality of the films today. As an old codger, I have been a film goer for over 80 years and in that time have seen hundreds of films some good and some bad but overall believe that things have not changed much. With regard to story plots, A journalist in the old Amateur Cine World magazine once stated that there are only 23 basic plots in fiction and Shakespeare used them all. To my mind it’s the twists that make the difference. Some of the best films I have seen have been those based on real events rather than fiction. The main problem seems to be that as always, the movie giants swamp the publicity and as mentioned flog a successful format to death with so many sequels. In order to get their films made the smaller producers have to get other companies to sponsor them in order to get their product screened. Ken Finch.

[Rob Young]

Ken, I agree and was trying to make exactly your point that, essentially, things haven't really changed and that we all enjoy different movies for different reasons. What is terrible for one viewer is great entertainment for another.

What was awful to Barry Norman as a middle aged man, I loved as a teenager.

What I'm indifferent to now is probably highly entertaining to a teenager.

I certainly think we are seeing extreme highs in production values and cinematography, but at the same time some of the lowest standards too. Has it ever been any different?

Would I think as a passive middle aged man that I'd like, say, the ultra-violent John Wick series of movies...hell no. But then I watch them and despite my better judgement I kinda find them entertaining in a comic book style.

I've always followed a "watch before you judge" attitude which has led me to sit through some god awful films but also some genuine surprises.

[Steve Klare]

Yes, and we should also remember some of the great film-makers from the golden era, for example Ed Wood!

Schlock is a fixture of every human endeavor from every time in history, even during what people like to remember as golden ages!

Guaranteed, when DaVinci was in his studio painting the Mona Lisa, some guy on the next block was doing dogs playing cards!

[Ed Gordon]

Ken, I agree and was trying to make exactly your point that, essentially, things haven't really changed and that we all enjoy different movies for different reasons. What is terrible for one viewer is great entertainment for another.

What was awful to Barry Norman as a middle aged man, I loved as a teenager....

Most film collectors seem to have started the hobby when they were teenagers. We hold on to fond memories about those younger days and the movies we loved then. More than once I have re-visited an old favorite film and found myself thinking, "Whatever did I see in this absolute piece of crap back then?". Movies have changed over the years, but they have not changed as much as our tastes have changed.

[Graham Ritchie]

For me of a time long long ago, it was action films like western, war, that type of things, films like those Carry on films or Elvis Presley were certainly not on my viewing list, in fact I would not want to ever, even to this day would watch any of them. Everyone one has different tastes, not all as good as mine "just kidding".

I never went to the cinema that much, or as Billy would say the talkies but films like The Great Escape, Battle Of The River Plate, The Sand Pebbles, Zulu, Born Free, The Trap, that last one made me save up for the Ron Goodwin 45rpm soundtrack were the films of my early teenage years, and to this day still enjoy watching them every so often. In later years I never really went much until I got older and came to NZ.

It would be hard for me to judge if films are better or worse these days certainly impressive films like Intersteller, The Martian on 3D, CGI like WALL-E could never have been made years ago as the technology was not there to do it. The great thing with home video projection blu-ray these days is the chance to watch your favorite movie from any time period

[Rob Young]

Ed, I think that's a pretty astute comment on this topic.

And further to Graham's comments, yes it is a golden age to be able to see restorations of older movies at home in HD and 4K HDR, not just classics but as Steve points out, "schlock", in fully restored quality and given the respect that many distributers maybe didn't afford such titles at the time.

I do think that a big screen, quality presentation makes ANY movie a more worth while entertainment.

We really do live in a great era for anyone who loves movies, both old and new.

[Ed Gordon]

... The great thing with home video projection blu-ray these days is the chance to watch your favorite movie from any time period

...We really do live in a great era for anyone who loves movies, both old and new.

I often browse online TV guides looking for movies I have missed. The ones that catch my eye usually have a rating of 3 (out of 4) "stars". The majority of films offered are rated 2 "stars" or below, that tells me that the majority of films are rated average to below average. So yes, it is true that "Well, they don't make 'em like that anymore. Although, come to think of it, they didn't make many like that even then..."

One of the benefits of digital technology is that we can now see brand new prints of restored films we saw on old flaky prints we watched on TV years ago. Worn out prints of wide screen films shown in "pan and scan" have been replaced by pristine copies of films presented in the format they were intended to be seen in. Films that were considered "lost" because analog restoration was either impossible or prohibitively expense to do, have be saved.

[Ken Finch]

To quote the late Prime Minister Harold Macmillon, “ You’ve never had it so good”. Ken Finch.😉

[Mike Newell]

We have lived through the best of film on 8mm and despite the objections of some digital gives us basically the Universe. Top of the World Ma.

Think back 40 years and think you would have every feature , cartoon plus loads of bonus material in your hands for in pristine condition that you could watch in cinema surroundings.

[Osi Osgood]

I liked that post Ken made earlier on this page. There is nothing I like more than when a film has a twist that I absolutely did not see coming, for instance, in Dark City. Another thing that really impressed me is when a film will be a tough subject, or even a horror film, that doesn't dip into the whole "T n A" thing, and even more of a surprise is when these films don't dip into endless profanities, just to attempt to give it more "realism". Although film-makers balked atthe production code of the early 30's to the early 60's, it did make the film-makers work that much harder to find creative ways to deal with hard subjects, and come up with classic films!

[Mike Newell]

I liked that post Ken made earlier on this page. There is nothing I like more than when a film has a twist that I absolutely did not see coming, for instance, in Dark City. Another thing that really impressed me is when a film will be a tough subject, or even a horror film, that doesn't dip into the whole "T n A" thing, and even more of a surprise is when these films don't dip into endless profanities, just to attempt to give it more "realism". Although film-makers balked atthe production code of the early 30's to the early 60's, it did make the film-makers work that much harder to find creative ways to deal with hard subjects, and come up with classic films!

Too many soft happy endings because that creates the best box office. Mr Spielberg is especially guilty.